On 8 Mar 2008, at 21:45, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Andy was tried as guilty, without complete documentation
> --------------------------------------------------------
>> There is still no documentation as to what Andy has done in the
> past to
> warrant this type of ban. In the admin's post to the list, the
> following
> was mentioned:
>>> As time permits, the admins will both hyperlink each of those
>> annotations to the specific email in the archives or edit in the wiki
>> history that caused it, as well as annotate any remaining rules with
>> their causes as well. We believe this will help provide better
>> transparency and accountability.
>> The time to generate transparency and accountability is BEFORE a ban,
> not after. This is why people are tried as innocent in most parts
> of the
> world - you may discover that what you think to be evidence against
> Andy
> falls down upon closer examination.
>> This sends a dubious message indeed - "The admins can ban you and
> then,
> ex post facto, document the reasons why they banned you". This is
> backwards.
>I think Manu raises an important point here - unlike Wikipedia,
there's no clear dispute resolution process for microformats.org.
Decisions appear to be made in camera, and released to the group
after the fact. That itself could also dissuade people from becoming
involved with microformats.
If I may ask, how many admins voted to ban Andy, and what was the
count on that vote?
Also, would it not have been polite, at the very least, for someone
to warn Andy that this ban was under consideration, and inform him
that he had been banned after it was put in place.
Jim
Jim O'Donnell
jim at eatyourgreens.org.ukhttp://eatyourgreens.org.ukhttp://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens